Reaction mixed to ruling blocking Pennsylvania voter ID law

Berks County people were divided this past week in their stances on Pennsylvania's voter identification law, which a judge struck down in the latest challenge to the controversial measure.

Critics have argued that requiring state-approved photo identification is too burdensome on voters who don't already have acceptable IDs and violates their right to vote under the state constitution.

And on Friday, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley agreed with them, issuing a permanent injunction forbidding the state from enforcing it.

The ruling earned cheers from some, like Laureldale resident Ryan Disabella, who called the law "a horrible abrogation of justice."

"It hearkens back to Jim Crow days," Disabella said.

Judy O'Connor added that the law would have prevented some from going to the polls.

"Especially older people who won't have (a) license or identification," the Mohrsville woman said.

McGinley's ruling followed a lawsuit filed against the state by the League of Women Voters of PA, the state chapter of the NAACP, the Homeless Advocacy Project and several individuals to prevent enforcement of the voter identification law adopted in March 2012.

Despite the opposition, many have praised the law that they said would have worked to prevent fixed elections and identity theft.

"If you're not responsible enough to get an ID then you're not responsible enough to vote," said Jason Taylor of Oley.

Joe Nuss agreed.

"You've got to show ID," said the taxi driver, who recently moved to Reading from Queens, N.Y. "Otherwise, you get a lot of phony votes. It's called voter fraud."

As a victim of identify theft, Joana Colon said that enforcing the voter ID law would have helped others from falling victim as she did.

"When you cash a check you need your ID; everywhere now you need your ID," said the Philadelphia native, who spends the weekends visiting family in Reading. "People should be prepared."

The voter identification law has never been implemented, due to a series of court rulings. The next stop for the case could be the state Supreme Court.